HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gerald Ash
Applicant
-and-
Valiant Rental Properties Ltd.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Ash v. Valiant Rent Properties Limited
APPEARANCES
Gerald Ash, Applicant
Self-represented
Valiant Rent Properties Limited, Respondent
Shelby Whittick, Representative
1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed by Gerald Ash. He alleges that the respondent contravened a confidentiality provision in the Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties in settlement of an Application brought previously by him. The respondent operates an apartment building in which the applicant is a tenant.
2The Contravention of Settlement Application was heard by telephone conference call hearing on September 5, 2014.
3The confidentiality provision read as follows:
The Applicant and the Respondent agree to maintain confidentiality of the discussions held during mediation and of the terms of these Minutes of Settlement, and shall not discuss or disclose the terms of settlement with anyone other than legal or financial advisors, or as required by law.
4Sometime after the Minutes of Settlement were signed, the applicant received a document from the Building Superintendent which contained some information pertaining to the settlement. The applicant alleges that this shows that the respondent contravened the confidentiality provision of the Settlement. He further alleges that this document is accessible to other employees of the respondent who have access to the computer system. There is no allegation that the Superintendent or anyone else disclosed anything relevant to anyone who is not an employee of the respondent.
ANALYSIS
5Section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended reads as follows:
45.9(3) If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, a party who believes that another party has contravened the settlement may make an application to the Tribunal for an order under subsection (8),
(a) within six months after the contravention to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of contraventions, within six months after the last contravention in the series.
6The issue of whether disclosure of the terms of settlement to the Superintendent contravenes the confidentiality provision requires examining the provision within the context of the settlement as a whole. Based on a review of the Minutes of Settlement, I find that that there was no contravention of the Minutes of Settlement. For the purposes of giving effect to the terms of the settlement in this case, the Superintendent was clearly an agent of the owner of an apartment building. In the circumstances of this case, it was necessary for the Superintendent, in his capacity as agent of the respondent to have some knowledge of the terms of the settlement in order to give effect to them. While the Superintendent would of course be bound by the confidentiality agreement, the fact that the Superintendent was aware of terms of the Settlement was not a breach of the confidentiality provision of the Settlement in this case. There is no suggestion that the Superintendent disclosed any information in contravention of the confidentiality provision.
DECISION
7The respondent did not contravene the Minutes of Settlement. The Contravention of Settlement Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of October, 2014.
“Signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair